1. On this subject, see Werses, Shmuel “Shabtay Ẓvi ve-ha-shabta'ut be-‘olama shel ha-sifrut ha-‘ivrit ha-ḥadasha,” Jerusalem Studies in Hebrew Literature 18 (2001): 105–36Google Scholar. Werses does not specifically mention Agnon but rather emphasizes the conceptual differences between the attitude toward Sabbateanism in modern Hebrew and Haskalah literature. On the latter, see Werses, Shmuel, Haskalah ve-shabta'ut (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center, 1988)Google Scholar.

2. On the attitude of these writers toward the Sabbatean movement and Sabbatai Ẓvi see Hazaz, Haim, The End of Days, trans. Bilu, Dalya (Tel Aviv: Institute for the Translation of Hebrew Literature, 1982)Google Scholar; Greenberg, Uri Ẓvi, Kol kitvey, ed. Miron, Dan (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1991), 1:73–74Google Scholar; idem, , “Melekh Shabtay Ẓvi” in his: Gezamlte verk, ed. Shmeruk, Ḥune (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1979), 2:499–507Google Scholar; Gilboa, Amir, “Me-shirey ha-yiḥud ’asher le-Meliselda: ha-ḥazon, ha-dam, ha-keẓ” in Amir Gilboa: Kol ktavav (Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuḥad, 1994), 1:138–40Google Scholar; Herzl, Theodor, Old-New Land, trans. Arnold, Paula (Haifa: Haifa Publishing, 1960), 74Google Scholar; Stein, Abraham Samuel, ʾEsh meriva (Tel Aviv: A. Neumann, 1955)Google Scholar; idem, , Ve-ha'esh heshe'ira ‘efer: roman history ‘al frank ve-‘adato (Tel Aviv: Aleph, 1956)Google Scholar; Shazar, Zalman, ‘Al tillei beit Frank (Berlin: W. Derugolin, 1923)Google Scholar. On later Hebrew poets who referred to Sabbatean issues, see Shvili's, Benyamin book of poems: idem, Yeled me‘if ‘afifun ba-me'ah ha-yod-zayin (Jerusalem: Eikhot 1988)Google Scholar; Meir, Yehoram Ben, “Nafshi nafshi le-Shabtay Ẓvi” in his Ve-nahar ha-yarkon yoẓe me-‘eden (Tel Aviv: Keshev, 2009), 112Google Scholar. We should also mention Isaac Bashevis Singer's Yiddish novel: Singer, Isaac Bashevis, Satan in Goray, trans. Sloan, Jacob (New York: Noonday Press, 1955)Google Scholar.

3. On messianic motifs in modern Hebrew literature see, e.g., Werses “Shabtay Ẓvi ve-hashabta'ut be-‘olama shel ha-sifrut ha-‘ivrit ha-ḥadasha”; Hever, Hannan, Be-shevi ha-utopia: masa ‘al meshiḥiyut u-politika ba-shira ha-‘ivrit bein shtey milḥamot ha-‘olam (Beersheba: Ben-Gurion University Press, 1995)Google Scholar; Levin, Israel, Tanim ve-kinor: ḥurban, galut, nakam u-ge'ula ba-shira ha-‘ivrit ha-le'umit (Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hame'uchad, 1998), 328–88Google Scholar; Wolf-Monzon, Tamar, “‘Main meshiḥer bruder shlomo’: le-zikato hanafshit shel Uri Ẓvi Greenberg le-R. Shlomo Molkho,” Jerusalem Studies in Hebrew Literature 18 (2001): 235–71Google Scholar.

4. To date, scholars and critics have not extensively examined Agnon's attitude toward the Sabbatean movement; it has only been mentioned briefly in a few previous studies. Joseph Dan dedicated a three-page essay to references on Sabbatean matters in The Bridal Canopy in the early 1980s: Dan, Joseph, “Zikhrey shabta'ut be-hakhnasat kala,” Ha-universita 25 (1981): 19–21Google Scholar. Previous studies have discussed a different issue—the special connection of Agnon to the Mussar treatise Ḥemdat yamim, which was suspected of having been written under Sabbatean influence. On this matter, see, e.g., Stern, Ḥaim, “Me-ḥemdat yamim le-yamim nora'im,” Criticism and Interpretation: Journal for Interdisciplinary Studies on Literature and Culture 35–36 (2002): 245–74Google Scholar; Elḥanan Shilo, Mishka‘ey kabbalah ve-derekh ‘ibuda ha-sifruti be-yeẓirato shel S.Y. Agnon (PhD diss., Bar-Ilan University, 2005), 263–371. Nevertheless it should be stressed that Agnon's attraction to Ḥemdat yamim should not be considered as a Sabbatean influence on his work, since he was already familiar with the book from his early years before he heard anything about the book's possible connection to any Sabbatean tendencies. See, e.g., Agnon, S.Y.‘ir u-melo'a, (Jerusalem and Tel Aviv: Schocken Books 1973), 82Google Scholar. On the scholarly debate concerning the Sabbatean character of Ḥemdat yamim see: Tishby, Isaiah, Netivey emuna u-minut: massot u-meḥkarim be-kabbalah ve-shabta'ut (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1982), 108–42; 143–68Google Scholar; Ya‘ari, Avraham, Ta‘alumat sefer (Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1954)Google Scholar; Scholem, Gershom, “Ve-ha-ta‘aluma be-‘eyna ‘omedet,” in Meḥkarei shabta'ut (Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 1991), 250–87Google Scholar; Fogel, Moshe, “Shabta'ut shel sefer ḥemdat yamim: hitbonenut meḥudeshet,” Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 17 (2001): 365–422Google Scholar.

5. See the catalogue of Agnon's library, (catalogue numbers 2275–2831), as well as a good portion of Gershom Scholem's articles about Sabbateanism, including very interesting dedications by Scholem to Agnon (collected under catalogue number 2438).

6. Agnon, S. Y., “Knots upon Knots,” trans. Hoffman, Ann Golomb, Conservative Judaism 37, no. 3 (1984): 38–41Google Scholar. The story is also published in Mintz, Alan and Hoffman, Ann Golomb, eds., A Book That Was Lost and Other Stories (New York: Schocken Books, 1995), 123–27Google Scholar. In The Bridal Canopy one can find a few Sabbatean issues: Agnon, S. Y., The Bridal Canopy, trans. Lask, I. M. (New York: Schocken Books, 1967), 257, 283Google Scholar. The short story “Komer l'Ishmaelim,” which was published in S. Y. Agnon, ‘ir u-melo'a,155–60, is a tale about Ḥemdat yamim's Sabbatean connection. A comparison between the Sabbatean and Hasidic movements can be found in Agnon's story “Ha-nidaḥ” in ’elu ve-'elu (Jerusalem and Tel Aviv: Schocken Books, 1947), 45:51Google Scholar, and in Agnon, The Bridal Canopy, 155–60.

7. On this see, e.g., Agnon, S. Y., Sefer sofer ve-sipur (Jerusalem and Tel Aviv: Schocken Books, 1978), 323Google Scholar; idem, , Sipurei ha-ba‘al shem tov (Jerusalem and Tel Aviv: Schocken Books, 1987), 47Google Scholar.

8. Agnon described the Sabbateans in a short chapter titled “Devarim she-kisuyam yafe me-giluyam” in ‘ir u-melo'a, 213–15. In this chapter Agnon insists that Jacob Frank was born in Buczacz and returned there after his sojourn in Turkey. Agnon described the character of Jacob Frank at length in a special chapter in his collection on the Jews in Poland: Agnon, S. Y., “Ein Wort über Jakob Frank,” in Das Buch von den Polnischen Juden, ed. Agnon, and Eliasberg, Aharon (Berlin: Jüdischer Verlag, 1916), 51–57Google Scholar. (I thank Paweł Maciejko from the Hebrew University for drawing my attention to this volume).

9. The problem of defining the precise genre of S. Y. Agnon's work has been discussed by scholars with respect to different Agnon texts: Only Yesterday was discussed at length in Arpaly, Boaz, Rav roman: ḥamisha ma'amarim ‘al Temol shilshom le-S. Y. Agnon (Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 1998), 7–9Google Scholar; Miron, Dan, “Me-mashal le-sipur toladi: petiḥa le-diyun be-Temol shilshom” in Koveẓ Agnon: An Agnon Miscellany (2000): 2:87–89Google Scholar. From a different angle, Avraham Holtz has described Only Yesterday and other Agnon novels as “documentary fiction.” See, e.g., Holtz, Avraham, “Reb Nahman Krochmal in Jaffa,” in History and Literature: New Readings of Jewish Texts in Honor of Arnold J. Band, ed. Cutter, William and J. Jacobson, David (Providence: Brown University, 2002), 138–39Google Scholar. The difficulties in defining the genre of The Bridal Canopy were discussed by Miron, Dan, Histaklut be-ravnekher: ‘al hakhnasat kalah le-S.Y. Agnon u-sviveah (Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 1996), 25–43Google Scholar. In his correspondence regarding Only Yesterday with Baruch Kurzweil, Agnon himself wrote: “I see all my stories as one piece, as is said: ‘they are stingy in this location while more expansive in another place’” (Dabby-Goury, L., ed., Ḥilufei 'igrot: Kurzweil, Agnon, Greenberg [Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1987], 20Google Scholar). It can be difficult to define the exact genre of Agnon's anthologies of classical Jewish sources because Agnon sometimes fabricates sources from whole cloth. On this point, see, e.g., Harkavi, Ẓvi, “Pseudo-mekorot be-yamim nora’im le-S.Y. Agnon,” Ha-sifrut 27 (1978): 137Google Scholar.

10. For a bibliographical survey of the scholarly debate on the tension between the traditional and modern worlds in Agnon's oeuvre, see Aberbach, David, “Agnon and the Need for Tradition,” Jewish Book Annual 46 (1988–1989): 93–107Google Scholar; Shaked, Gershon, Shmuel Yosef Agnon: A Revolutionary Traditionalist, trans. Green, Jeffrey M. (New York: New York University Press, 1989Google Scholar); Hoshen, Dalia, Agnon- Sipur hu (lo) sugia ba-gmara (Jerusalem: Rubin Mass, 2006), 17–32Google Scholar; Miron, Dan, Histaklut be-ravnekher: ‘al hakhnasat kalah le-S.Y. Agnon u-sviveah (Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 1996), 109–18Google Scholar; Weiss, Tzahi, Mot ha-shekhina be-yeẓirat S.Y. Agnon: keriah be-arba‘a sipurim u-mekoroteihem (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2009), 21–26Google Scholar.

11. The article was published in Hebrew in 1937 in the anthology Knesset and translated into English in 1971 as part of Scholem's collection of essays The Messianic Idea in Judaism (New York: Schocken Books, 1971Google Scholar). In that famous footnote Scholem wrote: “… I cannot conceal the fact, however, that after thoroughly examining both Eybeschütz’ own Kabbalistic writings and all the polemical works that they engendered I have been forced to conclude that he was indeed a Sabbatean, as both Jacob Emden and, in a later age, Heinrich Graetz insisted.” (Gershom Scholem, “Redemption through Sin,” trans. Hillel Halkin, in Scholem, Messianic Idea, 100 n. 11.)

12. Scholem, Gershom, “Le-she'elat yaḥaso shel R. Yonatan Eybeschütz la- shabta'ut,” Zion 6, no. 1 (1941): 96–100Google Scholar; idem, , “Bikoret ‘al: Jacob Emden: A Man of Controversy, by Mortimer J. Cohen,” Kiryat Sefer 16, no. 3 (1939): 320–38Google Scholar; idem, , “‘Al kame‘a eḥad shel R. Yonatan Eybeschütz u-pirusho ‘alav” Tarbiz 13, no. 4 (1942): 226–44Google Scholar.

13. See, e.g., Margolies, Reuven, a. Sibat hitnagduto shel rabenu Yaʿakov Emden le-rabenu Yonatan Eybeschütz b. le-ha-kategoria shenitḥadsha (Tel Aviv: Independent, 1941Google Scholar); Raphael, Yitzhak (under the pseudonym of A. Hashiloni), La-pulmus ha-meḥudash ‘al shabta'uto shel R. Yonatan Eybeschütz (Jerusalem: Association of Religious Writers, 1942)Google Scholar; Lachower, Yeruham Fishel, “Le-hemshekho shel riv histori” Moznaim 13 (1941): 177–86Google Scholar; Perlmuter, Moshe Aryeh, Ha-sefer “Va'avo hayom ’el ha-‘ayin,” shayekhuto le-R. Yonatan Eybeschütz ve-‘erko le-havanat ha-maḥloket bein ha-rav Yonatan Eybeschütz ve-harav Ya'akov Emden (Jerusalem: Schocken Books, 1942)Google Scholar.

14. S. Y.Agnon, “Knots upon Knots.” On this story, see also Hoffman's, Ann Golomb afterword to the translation in Conservative Judaism 37, no. 3 (1984): 41–42Google Scholar; Band, Arnold, “‘Kishrei ksharim’ u-ksharav: mi-mekoroteha shel shirah” Molad: The New Series 4 (1971): 97–101Google Scholar.

15. On that period, see also Laor, DanS.Y. Agnon: biografiya (Tel Aviv: Schocken Books, 1998), 417–24Google Scholar.

16. Ibid.

17. Agnon Archive, National Library of Israel, Jerusalem, 5:429.

18. Laor, biografiya, 38.

19. Agnon, “Knots upon Knots,” 41.

20. Ibid.

21. Ibid., 39.

22. Ibid., 38.

23. Ibid.

24. Ibid., 39.

25. “Dan Miron Interviews Gershom Scholem on S. Y. Agnon,” in Shapira, Avraham ed., Reẓifut u-mered: Gershom Scholem be-'omer u-v-siaḥ (Tel Aviv:Am Oved, 1995), 78Google Scholar.

26. Below, in the section “Things That Are Better Concealed Than Revealed.”

27. These stories were edited later in a Hebrew version under the title Polin: sipurei 'agadot, in the volume 'Elu ve-'elu, 375–78.

28. See Sefer shivḥei ha-Besht, ed. Horodetski, S. A. (Tel Aviv: Devir, 1947), 108Google Scholar.

29. Das Buch von den Polnischen Juden, 56–57.

30. On this tradition, see Scholem, Gershom, “Ha-tenu‘a ha-shabta'it be-folin” in Meḥkarim u-teʿudot le-toldot ha-shabta'ut ve-gilguleha (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1982), 119 n. 137Google Scholar.

31. See Laor, Biografia, 132–34.

32. The complete version of Ẓiẓat novel ẓvi was first published by Isaiah Tishby in 1954 (Sasportas, Jacob, Sefer ẓiẓat novel ẓvi, ed. Tishby, Isaiah (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1954)Google Scholar. This edition was based on the sole manuscript of the treatise, which was lost in Europe during the Holocaust. The only version that was known before 1954 is the shorter one that was edited in 1737 by Avraham Meldola and published in 1757 by Jacob Emden. This means that Agnon in Ha-nidaḥ (’Elu ve-'elu, 51) refers to Kiẓur ẓiẓat novel ẓvi. On the historical metamorphosis of this treatise, see: Tishby, Sefer ẓiẓat novel, xxxix–xliii.

33. Agnon, Ha-nidaḥ, 51.

34. See n. 6.

35. Agnon, The Bridal Canopy, 259 (with a few changes of mine).

36. It seems most likely that Agnon was familiar with the tale from Abraham Jakob Brawer's article on Dov-Ber Birkental's treatise Divre binah, which describes a story about a person named R. Salomon from Podhajce who became a Sabbatean and then repented. Nevertheless, and although he kept fasting on Tisha b'Av, he continued eating two red currants during the fast; see Brawer, Abraham Jakob, “Makor ‘ivry ḥadash le-toldot Frank ve-si‘ato” Ha-shilo'aḥ 33 (1903): 332Google Scholar. Scholem, “Ha-tenu‘a ha-shabta'it be-folin,” 114.

37. Agnon, Bridal Canopy, 244.

38. On the Schorr family from Rohatîn, see, e.g., Paweł Maciejko, The Development of the Frankist Movement in Poland, the Czech Lands and Germany (1755–1816) (PhD diss., Oxford University, 2003), 35–45; Graetz, Heinrich, History of the Jews (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1895), 5:275–80Google Scholar.

39. Emden, Jacob, Sifrei pulmus, vol. 2: Sefer shimush (Ashdod: The Institute for Heritage of the Holy People of Poland, 1998), 7aGoogle Scholar.

40. Agnon, S. Y., “‘Devarim she-kisuyam yafe me-giluyam’ in chapters from ‘ir u-melo'a,” Me'asef 1 (1960): 39–40.Google Scholar

41. Agnon, ‘ir u-melo'a, 213.

42. Emden, Jacob, Sifrei pulmus, vol. 1, Petaḥ ‘einaym (Ashdod: Institute for the Heritage of the Holy People of Poland, 1998), 15bGoogle Scholar.

43. Sefer geḥalei 'esh, MS Oxford Bodleian Library Mich. 106–108 (=Neubauer 2189), fol. 69r.

44. Scholem, Gershom, “Barukhiah, rosh ha-shabta'im be-saloniki,” Zion 6, no. 4 (1941): 193Google Scholar.

45. An extensive study of the scholarly and personal debate between Scholem and Kurzweil regarding research about the Sabbatean movement can be found in Zadoff, Noam, “Be-‘arugat ha-nihilizem: ha-pulmus bein Baruch Kurzweil ve-Gershom Scholem ‘al ḥeker ha-shabta'ut” Kabbalah 16 (2007): 299–360Google Scholar.